From: Nathan M. Andelin <firstname.lastname@example.org> > From: "Leif Svalgaard" <email@example.com> > > as I have stated many times before: it is wrong to blame > > IBM's poor marketing for the demise of the 400 > > (umm: e(logo)server iSeries). IBM *want* to get > > rid of the 400, to make it go away, so what they do > > (or don't do in this case) makes perfect sense and > > is not inept in any way. > > Why would IBM *want* the 400 to go away? Surely, you're joking. But this > isn't the first time you've said it. What's your rationale? > in the midrange server market, IBM has two systems that are very much alike (hardware wise) and which are in a sense competing against one another. One is seen as old-fashioned and is apparently a marketing embarrassment. Once we all run linux and no green screens anymore, there won't be enough difference between the two series to warrant having two of them. Ah, someone may say, but it makes a lot of sense to run COBOL on the server as COBOL is a much better business language than C, C++, or Java, but COBOL also runs on the pSeries. There is my rationale. But haven't we had this sort of discussion many times already?
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.